1. Peer reviewer training part II: What do editors want from reviewers? Dr Trish Groves Deputy editor, BMJ

2. How long might it take to do a good review of a standard length paper? 15 minutes 30 minutes One hour Two hours Five hours Ten hours 24 hours 48 hours

3. General principles Be courteous and constructive Remember you are advising us: we’ll decide what to do The main aim of peer review is to improve what we publish Maintain confidentiality Declare competing interests (and send back your best friend’s paper) Be timely (if you can’t do it on time, say so) “Do as you would be done unto”

4. Importance of the research question Has the research addressed a question that had to be answered, or is it just “another brick in the wall”? The question matters more than the answer. If the question was important and the answer is valid, then it doesn’t matter if the answer is negative or boring. Is this something that clinicians, policy makers, patients or the public need to know, remembering that there’s more for them to know than they can possibly know? Is this a POEM (patient oriented evidence that matters)?

5. Originality of the research I Ideally, you will do a literature search. Almost all of a series of RCTs described as “the first” in major journals were not the first. Has this never been done before? If the question has been addressed before does this add importantly (for example, a much bigger or better designed study)?

6. Originality of the research II Remember that some things that are “well known” are not based on any evidence. If you think the research unoriginal please give us references to previous work. Don’t just say “it’s unoriginal.” If there are other important studies that the authors don’t reference, please provide references

7. Validity of the research I Identify the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the study It isn’t possible to capture all the ways that you might help us with a few questions or guidelines Is the design right for answering the research question?

8. Validity of the research II But don’t let the best be the enemy of the good--is this the best that is possible? Were the data collected adequately? Was the sampling right? Are the methods described adequately? Are the analyses right? Should they be redone? Remember to try and be constructive

9. Validity of the research III If you are not strong on statistics say so; don’t pretend that you are when you aren’t Ideally you might add up some of the tables. You probably can’t do this for them all, but if one or two are wrong it raises important questions Do you think that the conclusions are supported by the data? Do the authors go beyond the evidence in their conclusions? (This is very common.)

10. Ethical issues Do you have any ethical worries? Many studies make no mention of ethical issues, not even whether the research was considered by an ethics committee Think about the ethical aspects of the research, even if there is a mention of approval by an ethics committee

11. Presentation of the research I Don’t bother telling us about spelling mistakes (except perhaps ones we might miss--eg, misspelt names) In the results is the balance of text, tables, and figures right [text tells the story, tables provide the data, figures illustrate the story] Do you have any suggestions on what might be in paper and what on the web?

12. Presentation of the research II Do the abstract and “what this study adds” box fit with the paper? (They often don’t.) Is the number of references about right? Should we commission any accompanying commentaries or editorials?

13. Extra points Do you have any anxieties about the possibility of research misconduct (if so, you might want to let us know privately) We will aim to give feedback Thank you for your hard work--it can be a thankless task, can’t it?

14. Thanks tgroves@bmj.com